HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

1997 expansion approval

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2012, 10:32 AM
  #76
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
All the southern failure is in the minds of the Canadian nationalists who don't like how much the NHL is becoming an American league. I mean think about it from their perspective. Canada is so freaking similar to the US that they can only stand out in so many ways. Hockey is one of them -- only now, not so much. There was always going to be a few bitter enders that resent losing that uniqueness as the NHL tries to go mainstream.
Ya, Dojji, lets not go there with this stuff. All it does is serve to inflame a small & very vocal minority of Canadian fans. I think you'll find the majority of far thinking people up here not only understand the importance of having successful franchises throughout the US, but so too welcome these teams, stitches together a cloth of unification in a pan North American sense of community, of friendship & trust built on mutual respect. The US is our biggest trading partner, hockey, sport in general a universal medium. We have no proprietary rights over the game, welcome the competition, as the stronger our opponents become, the better we have to be in order to compete.... besides, we took over Hollywood, much of the music industry, the Anchor Chairs with most of your news outlets, infiltrated your Ivy League schools & universities, and soon, yes, very soon, we'll be in complete control. Better you should lie back, relax & enjoy it.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:33 AM
  #77
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I seriously think that they hate the idea of 30,000 fans celebrating a Cup victory in this or that US city, when in Canada they see it as 300,000 fans that would be celebrating. But whatever, those are sometimes just the facts of life.
That's what it partly comes down to. For some it's bigger then hockey

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:34 AM
  #78
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
I agree. Most Canadians do what you say, Killion. That's why I'm trying to make clear I'm throwing stones just at the bitter-enders who can't let go of the us-vs.-them mentality.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:36 AM
  #79
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, Dojji, lets not go there with this stuff. All it does is serve to inflame a small & vocal minority of Canadian fans. I think you'll find the majority of far thinking people up here not only understand the importance of having successful franchises throughout the US, but so too welcome these teams, stitches together a cloth of unification in a pan North American sense of community, of friendship & trust built on mutual respect. The US is our biggest trading partner, hockey, sport in general a universal medium. We have no proprietary rights over the game, welcome the competition, as the stronger our opponents become, the better we have to be in order to compete.
I wrote about this as a junior in high school Killion, the hockey thing represents a holy grail of Canadian culture for some.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:39 AM
  #80
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, Dojji, lets not go there with this stuff. All it does is serve to inflame a small & very vocal minority of Canadian fans. I think you'll find the majority of far thinking people up here not only understand the importance of having successful franchises throughout the US, but so too welcome these teams, stitches together a cloth of unification in a pan North American sense of community, of friendship & trust built on mutual respect. The US is our biggest trading partner, hockey, sport in general a universal medium. We have no proprietary rights over the game, welcome the competition, as the stronger our opponents become, the better we have to be in order to compete.... besides, we took over Hollywood, much of the music industry, the Anchor Chairs with most of your news outlets, infiltrated your Ivy League schools & universities, and soon, yes, very soon, we'll be in complete control. Better you should lie back, relax & enjoy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I seriously think that they hate the idea of 30,000 fans celebrating a Cup victory in this or that US city, when in Canada they see it as 300,000 fans that would be celebrating. But whatever, those are sometimes just the facts of life.



Again, the NHL has virtually always been about 2/3 US cities with mostly Canadian players. The percentage of cities has stayed roughly the same, the % of Canadian-born players has actually declined because of greater numbers of US and European-born players now in the League. If Canadians really want to complain, they should complain not about the number of US cities, but about the increase in the number of non-Canadian-born players.
You forget the NHL started with 6 canadian teams. I'm not saying their, these are the same people who think munching timbits is Canadian, but trying to lay out why they feel like that... me? I could care less.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:41 AM
  #81
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
I wrote about this as a junior in high school Killion, the hockey thing represents a holy grail of Canadian culture for some.
I might be wrong (as I discovered the other day), but even you, as a Canadian, are a Rangers fan. If you're so patriotic to Canadian hockey, how can you possibly be a Rangers fan? And their are just as many (roughly) Canadian hockey players playing in Nashville as there are in New York.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:45 AM
  #82
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
I agree. Most Canadians do what you say, Killion. That's why I'm trying to make clear I'm throwing stones just at the bitter-enders who can't let go of the us-vs.-them mentality.
I understand Dojji, but please do understand this; theres a lot of glass here at hfBoards; throwing stones is strictly verboten. Just ignore or Report any Slingshot Artists. We know how to deal with them. Of that I can assure you.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:55 AM
  #83
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
A new theory just popped into my head about why it might be that many Canadians hate US-expansion in the last 15 years.... In the past there were very few Canadian hockey teams, so at that time many Canadians took on US-based teams as their favorites. Then over time, the number of Canadian NHL cities grew, still in proportion to the growth in the US but in the case of Canada it was enough so to give fans in almost every region of Canada a team to cheer for. So then, US-based teams, which didn't already have an established Canadian fanbase, started to become purely enemy territory, just another bunch of teams that could keep Canadians from enjoying the celebration of hockey victories. Teams like Dallas, Anaheim, Tampa Bay, Carolina,... Canadian fans of those teams could be counted on one hand. And who did those teams win Cups against... Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, and Buffalo (the closest thing possible to a Canadian city and not be one).

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:56 AM
  #84
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
All the southern failure is in the minds of the Canadian nationalists who don't like how much the NHL is becoming an American league.

I mean think about it from their perspective. Canada is so freaking similar to the US that they can only stand out in so many ways. Hockey is one of them -- only now, not so much. There was always going to be a few bitter enders that resent losing that uniqueness as the NHL tries to go mainstream.
I think most people realize, nationalist or not, that the NHL became "Americanized" a long ago. One could even argue that professional hockey (as opposed to amateur) was an American idea. Some might bemoan it, others shrug, very few individuals at the end of the day though are calling for an all-Canadian league. Nobody is demanding the Red Wings, Flyers, or Rangers be relocated. The teams that are most often called out for relocation are those in warm climates and struggling.

These teams are indisputably a drag on the league. Growth has been slow, seats are often empty (even with winning teams), and losses are frequently in eight figures. It isn't unusual in any sport for fans of more successful teams to call out lowly teams in this regard. NFL fans often clamor for Jacksonville or Buffalo to move to Los Angeles, MLB fans clamoured for the Expos to move to Washington and are not setting their sights on the Marlins, and NBA fans look to Charlotte or even Toronto (despite being one of the few teams making an annual profit). Hockey simply intertwines that aspect with some nationalism. A revisionist but common argument is simply: "Winnipeg and Quebec lost their teams in the 1990's, why shouldn't Phoenix or Florida lose theirs now?" or "Why should Phoenix and Florida have a team when Quebec does not?"

Mod


Last edited by Killion: 12-21-2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason: yes, and addressed earlier htp...
htpwn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 11:03 AM
  #85
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I think most people realize, nationalist or not, that the NHL became "Americanized" a long ago.
If I take that point literally, then I have to ask: How is the NHL "americanized"? Is hockey today in the NHL somehow different than if it were a "Canadian" League? What rules would be different if it were more truly Canadian? How would hockey be different or played differently if it didn't have influence from the US?

Of course I don't actually think that's what you meant. But then, to say that the NHL has been "americanized" really gives a false connotation.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 11:14 AM
  #86
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
If I take that point literally, then I have to ask: How is the NHL "americanized"? Is hockey today in the NHL somehow different than if it were a "Canadian" League? What rules would be different if it were more truly Canadian? How would hockey be different or played differently if it didn't have influence from the US?

Of course I don't actually think that's what you meant. But then, to say that the NHL has been "americanized" really gives a false connotation.
Apologies, that was not my intention.

All I meant was the league is over 2/3 American with an American Commissioner and is run out of New York City. It is very much a league run by Americans, for Americans, leaving Canadian fans often (not always) left out.

htpwn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 11:21 AM
  #87
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Apologies, that was not my intention.

All I meant was the league is over 2/3 American with an American Commissioner and is run out of New York City. It is very much a league run by Americans, for Americans, leaving Canadian fans often (not always) left out.
No need to apologize. Either that was what you meant, or it was simply a poor choice of words. As for your clarification, of course that's all true. But I'm not so sure that just because the League offices are in New York that that means that Toronto and Montreal don't have a significant say. But yes, we all know that New York, Boston, and Philadephia all have strong voices in this League. But we also hear that the Rangers Dolan and Bettman don't always see eye-to-eye.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 11:31 AM
  #88
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No need to apologize. Either that was what you meant, or it was simply a poor choice of words. As for your clarification, of course that's all true. But I'm not so sure that just because the League offices are in New York that that means that Toronto and Montreal don't have a significant say. But yes, we all know that New York, Boston, and Philadephia all have strong voices in this League. But we also hear that the Rangers Dolan and Bettman don't always see eye-to-eye.
It isn't cut-and-dry, of course. I think both Toronto and Calgary are on the Executive Committee, so both have a fair amount of say.

What it comes down to though is every single Canadian team could vote against something at the Board of Governors and yet end up on the losing end by quite a wide margin.

This is very much an American-run and again, most have accepted that.

htpwn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 11:33 AM
  #89
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
It isn't cut-and-dry, of course. I think both Toronto and Calgary are on the Executive Committee, so both have a fair amount of say.

What it comes down to though is every single Canadian team could vote against something at the Board of Governors and yet end up on the losing end by quite a wide margin.

This is very much an American-run and again, most have accepted that.
But yet that's still all assumption. Do we actually have any real examples of such things happening?

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 11:55 AM
  #90
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
- Minnesota doesn't move to Dallas. The NHL remains in a rapidly dying market that had zero interest in supporting the North Stars, revisionist history aside.
Please. Minnesota's problem was poor ownership and poor marketing
Minnesota is probably the best hockey market in the USA, in terms of percentage of fans who like hockey. Their fans got screwed by a greedy NHL owner.

Quote:
- Quebec doesn't move to Colorado. Patrick Roy never gets traded to that team, so they continue to be an emerging team that never gets over the hump. The coming downfall of the Canadian dollar forces the sale of Sakic, Forsberg, and Nolan, and in their place a young Milan Hejduk and Chris Drury are forced into the lineup too soon and never develop into anything. As the dollar plummets and the team flounders, fans begin to stay away in large numbers.
Patrick Roy or no Patrick Roy, the Quebec Nordiques would have been a fine team. They could have lived an Ottawa Senators-like existence until getting a new arena.

- Winnipeg doesn't move to Phoenix. The NHL remains in a rapidly dying market that had zero interest in supporting the Jets, revisionist history aside.

Talk about revisionist history.


Quote:
- Hartford doesn't move to Carolina. The NHL remains in a rapidly dying market that had zero interest in supporting the Whalers, revisionist history aside.

So let's go to another stillborn market.

Quote:
- Expand to Dallas, Hamilton, Milwaukee, and Seattle. Dallas is quickly swamped and fails to gain a foothold in the market. Hamilton plays in an arena without the standard revenue streams, and despite a grassroots following, they hemorrhage money every year and are never able to improve. Milwaukee discovers that, with Patrick Roy having been traded to Chicago (since he wasn't going to Quebec), capturing any of the Chicago spillover market is impossible. Seattle doesn't care, as the Mariners are contending every year for the World Series, the Sonics are an excellent NBA team, and the Seahawks start showing signs of life.
[/QUOTE]

I got an idea, how about we trade all the good teams to the crappy southern markets and move all the bad teams to the good northern markets.
Just to keep the Nascar hockey fans happy.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:10 PM
  #91
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
These teams are indisputably a drag on the league. Growth has been slow, seats are often empty (even with winning teams), and losses are frequently in eight figures. It isn't unusual in any sport for fans of more successful teams to call out lowly teams in this regard. NFL fans often clamor for Jacksonville or Buffalo to move to Los Angeles, MLB fans clamoured for the Expos to move to Washington and are not setting their sights on the Marlins, and NBA fans look to Charlotte or even Toronto (despite being one of the few teams making an annual profit). Hockey simply intertwines that aspect with some nationalism. A revisionist but common argument is simply: "Winnipeg and Quebec lost their teams in the 1990's, why shouldn't Phoenix or Florida lose theirs now?" or "Why should Phoenix and Florida have a team when Quebec does not?"

Mod
Simply on the bolded part, name these teams. I'm curious to know what winning teams still have no following.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:19 PM
  #92
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Please. Minnesota's problem was poor ownership and poor marketing
Minnesota is probably the best hockey market in the USA, in terms of percentage of fans who like hockey. Their fans got screwed by a greedy NHL owner.
Oh, what a bunch of crap. Minnesota had multiple owners, all of whom had the same problem: no one cared.

If Minnesota is in fact that best hockey market in the USA, why does the team need to market? Everyone knows it's there; it had been there for an entire generation, and certainly no one needed the game.

Why does Minnesota, which needs no marketing, get a pass on that while Atlanta does not?

Quote:
Patrick Roy or no Patrick Roy, the Quebec Nordiques would have been a fine team. They could have lived an Ottawa Senators-like existence until getting a new arena.
If there's one thing that's guaranteed, it's getting a new arena. Let's talk to Winnipeg about how well their 12-year struggle to just get some basic renovations worked out for them.

Quote:
- Winnipeg doesn't move to Phoenix. The NHL remains in a rapidly dying market that had zero interest in supporting the Jets, revisionist history aside.

Talk about revisionist history.
Winnipeg never hit 90% attendance capacity in a single season no matter what. An exciting team? They had it. Exciting players? Had those. Frequently in the postseason? Had that too.

...and never once hit 90%. Not once.

Quote:
So let's go to another stillborn market.
Neither your problem nor mine.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:45 PM
  #93
Mwd711
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Just a question to consider.

Let's start in 1993.
What kind of shape would the NHL be in today IF;

We expand to Colorado instead of Florida
Minnesota doesn't move to Dallas
Quebec doesn't move to Colorado.
Winnipeg doesn't move to Phoenix
Hartford doesn't move to Carolina
We expand to Dallas instead of Nashville
We expand to Hamilton instead of Atlanta
We expand to Milwaukee instead of Columbus
We expand to Seattle instead of Minnesota

The rapid southern expansion was a failure. That's not even debatable at this point.
In most of your hypothetical places, nobody wanted to own teams or even made serious expansion bids.

On the flip side, how different would it be if Wayne Huizenga still owned Florida and Turner never merged with AOL. The league could not for see that happening down the road or are you saying they should've denied some of the most powerful people in business right from the get go? That would've been considered extremely short sighted and would've made the NHL a laughingstock on Wall Street and Madison Avenue.

How bout if Tom Hicks never went broke because of bad investments? Where would Dallas be today? Just a decade ago, Dallas was considered one of the league's strongest markets. We could go round and round but there's no way any sane league would turn them down at owning teams. They were too rich and too powerful. There was no way to know that these teams would suffer down the road because their original owners sold them or their owners went broke.

Mwd711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:46 PM
  #94
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
I resent it being considered "indisputable" that the southern expansion failed. Unless you count Columbus as a Sunbelt team (Ohio? Seriously?) the only Southern team currently in any imminent danger is Phoenix. The others are a bit rocky, but are in no serious danger of being unable to operate in the near future. They're basically what a league trying to open a new market by expanding into it looks like. Given enough time to warm up to the idea I'm convinced the South will eventually embrace hockey at least as one sport among many and a good sport to come watch when football's not on.
I honestly don't like making this about geography and nothing else. There have been successes and failures, north and south.

You're blithely dismissing previous failures, including that Atlanta was just relocated a mere season ago. Phoenix was the relo target, but we see how that's been going. It is rocky for a few others as well.


What pisses me off though is that the one team that has recovered from Leipold's mismanagement (although he did hire Poile as GM) and has ownership that is responsible and committed has its heart ripped out by recent events, but the kind of thing that the league shuts down over to change.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:48 PM
  #95
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I might be wrong (as I discovered the other day), but even you, as a Canadian, are a Rangers fan. If you're so patriotic to Canadian hockey, how can you possibly be a Rangers fan? And their are just as many (roughly) Canadian hockey players playing in Nashville as there are in New York.
I'm not really. it's just an obervation. I don't really agree with those views, but I have observed that Canadians are sensitive, IMO to cultural issues. Again, I don't agree with those views, just bringing a different perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No need to apologize. Either that was what you meant, or it was simply a poor choice of words. As for your clarification, of course that's all true. But I'm not so sure that just because the League offices are in New York that that means that Toronto and Montreal don't have a significant say. But yes, we all know that New York, Boston, and Philadephia all have strong voices in this League. But we also hear that the Rangers Dolan and Bettman don't always see eye-to-eye.
I can tell you New York has no voice and was against the lockout.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:53 PM
  #96
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
6 team NHL isn't so bad. Most of us would be watching hockey with or without a team.
probably not. if that was the case why not just watch the KHL teams now?

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:56 PM
  #97
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwd711 View Post

On the flip side, how different would it be if Wayne Huizenga still owned Florida and Turner never merged with AOL. The league could not for see that happening down the road or are you saying they should've denied some of the most powerful people in business right from the get go? That would've been considered extremely short sighted and would've made the NHL a laughingstock on Wall Street and Madison Avenue.

How bout if Tom Hicks never went broke because of bad investments? Where would Dallas be today? Just a decade ago, Dallas was considered one of the league's strongest markets. We could go round and round but there's no way any sane league would turn them down at owning teams. They were too rich and too powerful. There was no way to know that these teams would suffer down the road because their original owners sold them or their owners went broke.

I think there are examples of bad original owner decisions, in addition to subsequent owner decisions. Like Tampa. Nashville and Boots. Phoenix on the back of a real estate developer, as a re-sale. Ottawa was also part of a real estate block. Disney? It seemed like a great idea at the time. Atlanta and ASG?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:56 PM
  #98
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
But yet that's still all assumption. Do we actually have any real examples of such things happening?
No and perhaps I was unclear in getting my point across again.

I did not mean to imply Canadian teams have no say or have been silenced by their American counterparts, though that is certainly how my previous post comes across. It was a poor example in an attempt to illustrate that American teams, particularly the likes of Boston (as you mentioned), along with an American commissioner often are the ones driving the agenda. Canadian teams, by contrast, seem to just be along for the ride.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Simply on the bolded part, name these teams. I'm curious to know what winning teams still have no following.
I said "empty seats," not "no following." Two very different statements.

The two teams that the comment was in direct reference to was Florida and Phoenix but teams like Carolina, Tampa, and New Jersey have had struggles in the past as well.

htpwn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:57 PM
  #99
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
probably not. if that was the case why not just watch the KHL teams now?
Accessibility.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 12:59 PM
  #100
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Simply on the bolded part, name these teams. I'm curious to know what winning teams still have no following.
Assume talking butts in seats. Every team in the league including those now long gone have suffered the same malady at various times including all 7 in Canada, win, lose or (formerly) draw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Oh, what a bunch of crap. Minnesota had multiple owners, all of whom had the same problem: no one cared.
Seems to be a Way Station for Grifters & Miscreants. Unbelievable really. Talk about colourful. The Gunds, Norm Green with his wife threatening divorce if he didnt "get rid of that god damn hockey team; its freezing up here, were moving to Palm Desert". Now they've got a guy who tends be rather liberal with the truth in Craig Leipold installed in the ownership suite, his former partner either up on charges or recently having paid some heavy fines pursuant to some kinda nonsense with the Securities & Exchange Commission, the IRS etc. Im sure old Mad Trapper & Bootlegger Pierre "Pig's Eye" Parrant, one of the founders of St.Paul & Minneapolis must be rolling in his grave in hysterics, sharing a jug with Bruce Norris, Mel Swig, Harold Ballard & God only knows who else.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.